Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Remember UDP size limit for 0-RTT (#3498)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Wed, 04 March 2020 07:00 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE8443A104E for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 23:00:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QiyA8wLb0NPz for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 23:00:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-22.smtp.github.com (out-22.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76D5C3A104A for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 23:00:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-f045d1f.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-f045d1f.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.19.54]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D4AAA04F7 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 23:00:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1583305216; bh=GvTUzBF72WS/QGM9sqWLcobXfZfnTiLhtWtVl1j4EdY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=ddwPiehER8ZKlzOM/A7/Lb3ZNQv1S1P6BJy392LYkQowEXHMylkuHdOOYnDLg/893 JEiYMefq+iDovYau+7mfBHJ4XmIGC3PTyNjBYKKm3eeIJ1kR3WDYH6QS6tAq/bYWO5 /l751XO2EDov2ycmeH3LKUK4BtYfodojp0CZONk0=
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 23:00:16 -0800
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK7EI5IAZD6PSGWG6254NMZQBEVBNHHCER4U6A@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3498/review/368541471@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3498@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3498@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Remember UDP size limit for 0-RTT (#3498)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e5f52005ebda_2b603ff9914cd96435772d"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/9f0aCY6SFUx9N1M6i5nuqbLKknQ>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 07:00:19 -0000

martinthomson commented on this pull request.



>  
 * initial_max_data
 * initial_max_stream_data_bidi_local
 * initial_max_stream_data_bidi_remote
 * initial_max_stream_data_uni
 * initial_max_streams_bidi
 * initial_max_streams_uni
+* max_udp_payload_size

You are suggesting then that this can work in certain narrow cases, therefore it shouldn't be a firm requirement?

The inverse of that is that is what concerns me.  Servers accept 0-RTT with reduced limits, with reasons other than the ones you describe, and all of the 0-RTT goes into the void.  Clients will routinely attempt to fill all available 0-RTT space with data.  If the limits that the server imposes matter here.

If local constraints change in a way that the server knows about, such that it will advertise a lower limit in the transport parameter, then it is better if it doesn't accept 0-RTT.

I get that this is a "no harm" scenario in the sense that the connection won't be torn down as a result of all those packets getting lost, but the result is worse than rejecting 0-RTT because the client will mark all those packets as lost as opposed to just forgetting them.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3498#discussion_r387479268